Education Equality in America - Education Equality Index [PDF]

Education Equality in America Comparing the Achievement Gap Across Schools, Cities, and States

2

EDUCATION EQUALITY IN AMERICA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About Education Cities

3

Acknowledgements

4

Foreword

5

About the Education Equality Index

7

How to Use the Education Equality Index

9

+ NATIONAL EDUCATION LEADERS + STATE EDUCATION LEADERS + MAYORS + SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Key Findings

14

Rankings

17

+ TOP 10 CITIES (2014) + TOP 10 STATES (2014) + TOP 10 CITIES (BY PACE OF CHANGE 2011-2014) + TOP 10 STATES (BY PACE OF CHANGE 2011-2014)

Methodology

20

Appendix A

24

+ CITY RANKINGS (2014) + STATE RANKINGS (2014) + CITY RANKINGS (BY PACE OF CHANGE 2011-2014) + STATE RANKINGS (BY PACE OF CHANGE 2011-2014)

EDUCATION CITIES

Who We Are

ABOUT EDUCATION CITIES

Education Cities is a network of 31 city-based organizations in 24 cities united by one North Star goal: increasing the number of great public schools. Learn more at education-cities.org.

MARCH 2016

3

4


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Education Cities would like to thank our colleagues at GreatSchools and Schoolzilla for their partnership in the creation of the Education Equality Index. We are particularly grateful to Bill Jackson, Samantha Oliveri, Sarah Argodale, Lynzi Ziegenhagen, Zita DePetris, and Ryan Best. We are also grateful to the many thought partners, academics, and data experts who contributed to the design, review, and production of the Education Equality Index. Finally, we would like to thank George Prevelige, Joe Siedlecki, and Jon Rybka from the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation for supporting this work and advising our team along the way. Carrie McPherson Douglass, Dan Tesfay, and Christine Schneider from Education Cities have all played leading roles developing and producing the Education Equality Index. The findings and conclusions in this report, in addition to any errors, are our own.

Foreward

EDUCATION CITIES

The United States was founded on the idea that we are all created equal, yet economic, racial, and educational inequality have become key themes in our civic discourse. If education was once thought to be “the great equalizer,” how does the U.S. fare in our effort to provide equal opportunity to all children? Education Cities and GreatSchools have together launched the Education Equality Index in an attempt to answer this question. The Education Equality Index is the first national comparative measure of the achievement gap between children growing up in low-income communities and their more advantaged peers. Our data spans 42 states, 15,000 cities, 78,000 schools, and 43,000,000 children. It is the largest data set of its kind. We have developed a methodology to help us compare schools, cities, and states across the country, despite the use of different standards and different tests. What we have found in our first wave of research is reason for frustration, hope, and determination. We should be frustrated that the achievement gap is pervasive and growing in nearly half of the largest 100 U.S. cities. We should be hopeful because in nearly every city schools are working to close or have closed the achievement gap. And we should be determined to learn from these schools and their great educators, and commit to ensuring more children can access gap-closing schools each and every year. This is the first of a variety of publications coming in 2016 and beyond tied to the Education Equality Index data. We hope that parents, educators, policymakers, and civic leaders will explore this report to see how their communities fare in our ranking of the 100 largest cities in the country. More importantly, we encourage everyone to help celebrate the schools we’ve identified in each city that are providing an equal opportunity to all their children. There are not enough of these schools. But their existence should remind us that it is indeed possible to live up to our national ideals. Yours in service,

Ethan Gray Founder and CEO, Education Cities

5

6


EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IS AN AMERICAN IDEAL. Yet only 2 of 10 students from low-income families attend schools that have successfully closed the achievement gap.

EDUCATION CITIES

About the Education Equality Index

The Education Equality Index is the first comparative national tool exploring how well states, cities, and schools are closing the achievement gap between students from low-income communities and their more advantaged peers. Through the Education Equality Index, Education Cities has amassed one of the largest collections of publicly available state proficiency data in the country, including subgroup data for students who receive free and reduced price lunch at the subject/ grade level. We have also developed a nationallyunique methodology that allows us to compare student performance across cities and states even though they use different assessments and have set different achievement standards.

7

8


In the first report using Education Equality Index data, we focus on schools with significant concentrations of students from low-income families. The data highlights schools that are working to close or have closed the achievement gap where at least 51 percent of the student population receives a free or reduced price lunch (a common measure of economic disadvantage). We have chosen to focus on these schools because 51 percent is the national average school-level concentration of students from low-income families1. To be clear, there are many schools that serve fewer than 51 percent students receiving free or reduced price lunch that are working to close or have closed the achievement gap. However, we believe that it is important to highlight schools with significant concentrations of students from low-income families as their efforts and achievements are worthy of special attention. We made a decision to highlight up to 10 schools in each city. In some cities there are fewer and in some cities there are more – but for the focus of this first release we’d like to draw attention to the top 10. In future reports, we plan to release additional data and analysis of schools that serve the full spectrum of student populations. We also wish to clarify that the Education Equality Index is not intended to serve as a broad measure of school quality; rather, it’s a narrow measure of equality of student outcomes. For too long, discussions about school quality have failed to account for the persistent achievement gap between children from low-income families and their more advantaged peers. Education Cities believes that any conversation about school quality must include a focus on equality as well. Too many state accountability systems give credit to supposedly high-performing schools, even if those schools maintain significant achievement gaps between children from different backgrounds. The Education Equality Index makes it easy for parents, educators, and policymakers to bring equality into any discussion of school quality at the city or state level.

1

ational Center For Education Statistics, “Number and percentage of public school students N eligible for free or reduced price lunch, by state,” https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/ dt14_204.10.asp

Aspire Richmond California College Preparatory Academy, Courtesy of Chamberlin Family Foundation

EDUCATION CITIES

How to Use the Education Equality Index

The Education Equality Index identifies the schools, cities, and states that are providing the most equitable education for children from low-income families. We hope this tool serves as a starting place for educators, policymakers, researchers, and school leaders as they look to scale what works for all children to more schools across the nation. This is the first in a series of data releases designed to serve a wide variety of audiences.

9

10


National Education Leaders No school should be considered high-quality if it does not serve its most vulnerable population well. The Education Equality Index should root conversations about school quality in one simple question: Do they serve all students, regardless of demographics, well? In the education sector, national policymakers, nonprofit leaders, and researchers should identify and study the places that have made the most progress in closing the achievement gap, and identify the enabling conditions that allow students from low-income families to achieve at levels similar to their more advantaged peers.

It’s our hope that national education leaders use the Education Equality Index to provide direction when answering the following questions:

What cities and states are closing the achievement gap fastest? How might measures of equality get built into national and state accountability systems? hat correlations should we run with Education W Equality Index data to identify additional research questions?

EDUCATION CITIES

State Education Leaders While many states and cities have robust school quality measures that incorporate meaningful indicators such as college readiness, culture, and safety, few, if any, are able to determine with this level of clarity how well specific schools are serving their most vulnerable children. We challenge those leading the charge at the state level to develop new accountability systems in the wake of the Every Child Succeeds Act to incorporate a measure of equality, so that closing the achievement gap becomes a priority in states across the country.

State education leaders should use the Education Equality Index to provide direction when answering the following questions:

What cities in my state are closing the achievement gap fastest? What are they doing that is materially different than cities where the gap is largest, or growing the fastest? How well, if at all, does our current accountability system account for equality of outcomes between children from low-income families and their more advantaged peers? How can state leaders learn from educators working in the most equitable schools, to support policies that foster more schools like theirs?

11

12


Mayors Cities are the hotbed of innovation for public education, and mayors can yield enormous impact. Mayors should use the Education Equality Index to provide direction when answering the following questions:

What schools in my city are providing an equitable education for all children? What cities across the country have the smallest achievement gaps, and what are they doing to ensure all children, regardless of demographics, have access to a great school? What can our city do to ensure more schools provide an equitable education for all children? How can our city overcome the “belief gap” that all students can succeed at high levels if given the opportunity?

EDUCATION CITIES

School Systems The Education Equality Index shows schools in every city that prove all children, regardless of background, can achieve at high levels. School system leadership and staff should use the Education Equality Index to provide direction when answering the following questions:

What is happening in the schools in my city that are providing the most equitable education for all children? What are the conditions that yield the greatest impact on student outcomes in these schools? How can we create those conditions in more schools? How can more educators be exposed to schools that are closing the achievement gap in order to learn from them?

13

14


Richmond College Prep, Courtesy of Chamberlin Family Foundation

Key Findings

State Level The statewide achievement gap is massive in three out of four states for which data is available.

In the majority of states, the statewide achievement gap narrowed slightly between 2011 and 2014.

Arizona is home to three of the 10 cities with the smallest achievement gaps.

The three biggest U.S. states - California, Texas, and Florida - are home to some of the smallest achievement gaps in the nation.

EDUCATION CITIES

City Level In most major U.S. cities, the achievement gap between students from low-income families and their more advantaged peers stagnated or grew between 2011-14.

Nearly every major U.S. city is home to a large or massive achievement gap.

Some of the biggest U.S. cities like El Paso, New York and San Francisco are among the 10 cities with the smallest achievement gaps.

Of the 100 major U.S. cities, eight have small achievement gaps, 25 have large achievement gaps and 67 have massive achievement gaps.

Some cities with high concentrations of free and reduced lunch students are those that are most equitable.

Two of the three major U.S. cities with the smallest achievement gaps - Hialeah and Miami - are both in the same school district - Miami-Dade County Public Schools.

15

16


School Level

Only two in 10 students from low-income families attend schools that have successfully closed the achievement gap.

The majority of major U.S. cities are home to fewer than 10 schools serving primarily students from lowincome families that have a small or nonexistent achievement gap.

Schools with massive achievement gaps in one year are highly likely to have a massive achievement gap the next year.

Half of the schools recognized in the 100 biggest U.S. cities as having a nonexistent or small achievement gap are elementary schools.

On average, only six percent of students from lowincome families in the biggest 100 cities in the U.S. attend a school with no achievement gap.

Aspire Richmond Technology Academy,

EDUCATION CITIES

Courtesy of Chamberlin Family Foundation

Rankings

Top 10 Cities (2014)

2

EEI SCORE RANKING

CITY, STATE

EEI SCORE

FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH2

1

Hialeah, Fla.

60.9

83%

2

Gilbert, Ariz.

59.6

18%

3

Miami

57.7

73%

4

El Paso, Texas

56.2

74%

5

Irvine, Texas

55.3

14%

6

San Francisco*

51.1

63%

7

Scottsdale, Ariz.

50.8

20%

8

Garland, Texas

50.5

67%

9

New York

49.6

70%

10

Chandler, Ariz.

48.5

33%

his indicates the estimated percentage of students in the city who receive free or reduced price T lunch through the National School Lunch Program. Estimates were calculated using total school enrollment and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch in each city using data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

17

18


Top 10 States (2014) EEI SCORE RANKING

CITY, STATE

EEI SCORE


1

New Mexico

46.2

68%

2

Florida

45.2

59%

3

Arizona

43

47%

4

Texas

41.6

60%

5

Tennessee

41.5

58%

6

South Carolina

41.4

58%

7

Ohio

40.8

39%

8

Nevada

39.2

51%

9

New York

38.6

48%

10

California*

36.7

55%

Top 10 Cities (By Pace of Change 2011-2014)

3

PACE OF CHANGE RANKING

CITY, STATE

RATE OF CHANGE

FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH

1

Omaha, Neb.

31%

50%

2

Denver

31%

71%

3

Norfolk, Va.

30%

63%

4

Reno, Nev.

25%

44%

5

North Las Vegas, Nev.

25%

74%

6

Lincoln, Neb.

23%

43%

7

Orlando, Fla.

21%

65%

8

Memphis, Tenn.

19%

82%

9

Tampa, Fla.

18%

64%

10

Tacoma, Wash.

18%

44%

his indicates the percentage of students in the state who receive free or reduced price lunch T through the National School Lunch Program as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

EDUCATION CITIES

19

Top 10 States (By Pace of Change 2011-2014) PACE OF CHANGE RANKING

STATE

RATE OF CHANGE


1

Nebraska

35%

44%

2

Rhode Island

18%

46%

3

Nevada

14%

51%

4

Massachusetts

13%

37%

5

New Hampshire

13%

27%

6

Pennsylvania

10%

40%

7

Indiana

7%

49%

8

Colorado

7%

42%

9

Washington

6%

45%

10

Vermont

6%

36%

*T his score was calculated using 2013 data. California Department of Education did not record 2014 test results during transition to Smarter Balanced Assessment System.

Summit K2 - El Cerrito/Richmond, CA, Courtesy of Chamberlin Family Foundation

20


Nystrom Elementary School, Courtesy of Chamberlin Family Foundation

Methodology

The Education Equality Index (EEI) is a comparative measure of the achievement gap between students from low-income families, as measured by participation in the free and reduced price lunch program, and their more advantaged peers. The EEI compares the proportion of students from low-income families who are proficient on a state assessment to all students across the state who took that same grade or subject level assessment. This proportion-based methodology allows for comparisons between states, even though they use different assessments and set different standards for achievement. Using New Mission High School as an example, here is how an EEI score for an individual school is calculated.

EDUCATION CITIES

Step 1: Look at the percent of FRL students at one school who are “proficient” on a specific assessment. 86% of FRL students at New Mission were proficient on the state assessment for 10th grade math.

Step 2: Compare the percent of FRL students who reached proficiency at that school to ALL students in the state who took that assessment. The 86% proficiency rate at New Mission is above average when compared to ALL students in Massachusetts who took the 10th grade math assessment. That rate of proficient low-income students equals a standardized score of 67.7 on a scale from 0-100.

Step 3: Repeat Steps 1 and 2 to get a score for every subject/grade assessment at that school. The scores reflect FRL student proficiency at New Mission compared to ALL students in the state. For example, FRL students outperformed the state average in 10th grade math but underperformed the state average in 10th grade science.

21

22


Step 4: Take an average of all subject/grade scores to arrive at a school’s raw EEI score. The average score at New Mission is 63.0. It is weighted based on the number of students tested in each subject/grade.

Step 5: Adjust the school’s score to more fairly compare schools serving a high percentage of FRL students. New Mission serves a much higher percentage of FRL students than the national average so the score is slightly increased by 8.8.

Step 6: Each school’s adjusted percentile is its Education Equality Index score. Out of 1,669 schools in Massachusetts, New Mission’s adjusted score puts it in the 71.8th percentile. The school’s EEI score is 71.8.

EDUCATION CITIES

How We Calculate City and State Scores To determine a city’s score, the Education Equality Index averaged scores for every school with an address in the city boundary. Each school’s score is weighted based on total enrollment as reported by the state’s department of education. It is important to note that a city boundary is not the same as a school district boundary. State scores are created using the same method. Each school in the state is weighted based on total enrollment as reported by the state’s department of education.

What Do the Education Equality Index Scores Mean?

68-100 = No Achievement Gap Students from low-income families in a given school, city or state reach proficiency at a higher rate than their more advantaged peers, on average.

50-67.9 = Small Achievement Gap Students from low-income families in a given school, city, or state reach proficiency at a similar rate as all students, on average.

38-49.9 = Large Achievement Gap Students from low-income families in a given school, city, or state reach proficiency at a higher rate than most students from lowincome families, but at a lower rate than all students, on average.

0-37.9 = Massive Achievement Gap Students from low-income families in a given school, city, or state reach proficiency at a lower rate than students from other low-income families, on average.

23

24

Verde Elementary School,


Courtesy of Chamberlin Family Foundation

Appendix A

The Education Equality Index features school, city, and state-level data for 35 states for which data is available and the 100 largest cities within those states. City Rankings (2014)

4

EEI SCORE RANKING

CITY, STATE

EEI SCORE


1

Hialeah, Fla.

60.9

83%

2

Gilbert, Ariz.

59.6

18%

3

Miami

57.7

73%

4

El Paso, Texas

56.2

74%

5

Irvine, Calif.*

55.3

14%

6

San Francisco*

51.1

63%

7

Scottsdale, Ariz.

50.8

20%

8

Garland, Texas

50.5

67%

9

New York

49.6

70%

10

Chandler, Ariz.

48.5

33%

his indicates the estimated percentage of students in the city who receive free or reduced price T lunch through the National School Lunch Program. Estimates were calculated using total school enrollment and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch in each city using data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

EDUCATION CITIES

5

EEI SCORE RANKING

CITY, STATE

EEI SCORE


11

Washington, D.C.5

48.1

61%

12

Plano, Texas

48.1

28%

13

Spokane, Wash.

48

53%

14

Mesa, Ariz.

47.4

53%

15

Henderson, Nev.

47.2

37%

16

Orlando, Fla.

47.1

65%

17

Austin, Texas

47.1

50%

18

Glendale, Ariz.

45.5

51%

19

Chicago

43.3

87%

20

Albuquerque, N.M.

43.1

64%

21

Houston

43

74%

22

Tampa, Fla.

43

64%

23

San Diego*

42.7

52%

24

Dallas

42.2

84%

25

Fremont, Calif.*

41.8

19%

26

Phoenix

41.7

63%

27

Chula Vista, Calif.*

41.3

47%

28

Arlington, Texas

40.2

65%

29

Las Vegas

40.2

63%

30

Fresno, Calif.*

39.1

76%

31

Charlotte, N.C.

38.9

64%

32

San Antonio

38.6

67%

33

Reno, Nev.

38.1

44%

34

Cincinnati

37.6

54%

35

Irving, Texas

37.6

72%

36

Jacksonville, Fla.

37.3

45%

37

Fort Worth, Texas

37.3

67%

38

Fort Wayne, Ind.

36.9

49%

39

Lubbock, Texas

36.5

63%

40

Pittsburgh

36.3

43%

ashington, D.C. Education Equality Index scores were calculated by comparing low-income W student proficiency in D.C. to all students in D.C.

25

26


EEI SCORE RANKING

CITY, STATE

EEI SCORE


41

Seattle

36.3

47%

42

Santa Ana, Calif.*

36.1

82%

43

Corpus Christi, Texas

35.7

61%

44

Modesto, Calif.*

35.6

68%

45

San Jose, Calif.*

35.4

49%

46

Tucson, Ariz.

35.3

49%

47

Portland, Ore.

34.4

52%

48

Jersey City, N.J.

34.2

76%

49

Fayetteville, N.C.

33.9

61%

50

Laredo, Texas

33.8

82%

51

Colorado Springs, Colo.

33.7

37%

52

Oakland, Calif.*

33.2

76%

53

Long Beach, Calif.*

32.6

70%

54


32.4

74%

55

Newark, N.J.

32.2

85%

56

Virginia Beach, Va.

31.8

38%

57

Los Angeles*

31.8

79%

58

Anaheim, Calif.*

31.6

74%

59

Philadelphia

31.2

79%

60

Toledo, Ohio

30.7

74%

61

Boise, Idaho

30.7

42%

62

Bakersfield, Calif.*

30.1

68%

63

Lincoln, Nev.

30

43%

64

Riverside, Calif.*

29.7

69%

65

Buffalo, N.Y.

29.4

61%

66

Louisville, Ky.

29.1

58%

67

Indianapolis

28.9

63%

68

Sacramento, Calif.*

28.4

71%

69

Boston

28.4

71%

70

Memphis, Tenn.

28.3

82%

EDUCATION CITIES

EEI SCORE RANKING

CITY, STATE

EEI SCORE


71

Chesapeake, Va.

28.2

29%

72

Greensboro, N.C.

28

57%

73

Lexington, Ky.

27.9

43%

74

Tacoma, Wash.

27.7

44%

75

Kansas City, Mo.

27.7

62%

76

Nashville, Tenn.

27.2

71%

77

Norfolk, Va.

27.1

63%

78

Fontana, Calif.*

27

81%

79

Winston-Salem, N.C.

26.8

64%

80

Rochester, N.Y.

26.7

64%

81

Columbus, Ohio

25.9

75%

82

St. Petersburg, Fla.

25.7

52%

83

San Bernardino, Calif.*

25.4

92%

84

Moreno Valley, Calif.*

25.2

82%

85

Stockton, Calif.*

25.1

77%

86

Providence, R.I.

24.7

84%

87

Richmond, Va.

24.2

55%

88

Denver

23.4

71%

89

Cleveland

22.8

88%

90

Oxnard, Calif.*

21.9

80%

91

Omaha, Neb.

21.1

50%

92

Raleigh, N.C.

20.5

42%

93

Aurora, Colo.

20.3

49%

94

St. Louis

19.8

61%

95

St. Paul, Minn.

18.8

69%

96

Durham, N.C.

17.9

65%

97

Minneapolis

16.2

69%

98

Milwaukee

14.7

84%

99

Madison, Wis.

10.6

49%

100

Des Moines

10.5

69%

27

28


State Rankings (2014)

6

STATE RANKING

STATE

EEI SCORE


1

New Mexico

46.2

68%

2

Florida

45.2

59%

3

Arizona

43

47%

4

Texas

41.6

60%

5

Tennessee

41.5

58%

6

South Carolina

41.4

58%

7

Ohio

40.8

39%

8

Nevada

39.2

51%

9

New York

38.6

48%

10

California

36.7

55%

11

Oregon

36.4

49%

12

Kentucky

36

55%

13

Pennsylvania

35.8

40%

14

Washington

35.8

45%

15

Indiana

35.5

49%

16

Rhode Island

34

46%

17

Idaho

34

47%

18

Delaware

33.5

51%

19

Illinois

33.3

50%

20

Missouri

31.5

45%

21

North Carolina

30.9

53%

22

New Jersey

28.7

37%

23

Minnesota

28.3

38%

24

Massachusetts

27.7

37%

25

Montana

27.6

42%

26

Virginia

26

39%

27

Wisconsin

25.5

41%

his indicates the percentage of students in the state who receive free or reduced price lunch T through the National School Lunch Program as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

EDUCATION CITIES

STATE RANKING

STATE

EEI SCORE


28

Nebraska

25.1

44%

29

Wyoming

24.8

38%

30

North Dakota

24

32%

31

Colorado

23.7

42%

32

Iowa

23.1

40%

33

Vermont

18.6

36%

34

New Hampshire

17.9

27%

City Rankings (By Pace of Change 2011-2014) PACE OF CHANGE RANKING

CITY, STATE

PACE OF CHANGE


1

Omaha, Neb.

31

50%

2

Denver

31

71%

3

Norfolk, Va.

30

63%

4

Reno, Nev.

25

44%

5


25

74%

6

Lincoln, Nev.

23

43%

7

Orlando, Fla.

21

65%

8

Memphis, Tenn.

19

82%

9

Tampa, Fla.

18

64%

10

Tacoma, Wash.

18

44%

11

Seattle

18

47%

12

Henderson, Nev.

16

37%

13

Spokane, Wash.

11

53%

14

Las Vegas

10

63%

15

Aurora, Colo.

10

50%

16

Colorado Springs, Colo.

10

37%

29

30



CITY, STATE

PACE OF CHANGE


17

Indianapolis

10

63%

18

Jersey City, N.J.

9

76%

19

Jacksonville, Fla.

9

45%

20

Pittsburgh

8

43%

21

Kansas City, Mo.

7

62%

22

Fremont, Calif.*

6

19%

23

San Diego*

6

52%

24

San Bernardino, Calif.*

6

92%

25

Hialeah, Fla.

6

83%

26

Anaheim, Calif.*

5

74%

27

Los Angeles*

5

79%

28

Riverside, Calif.*

5

69%

29

Irvine, Calif.*

5

14%

30

Miami

5

73%

31

Louisville, Ky.

4

58%

32

Portland, Ore.

4

52%

33

Plano, Texas

4

28%

34

Raleigh, N.C.

4

42%

35

Fort Wayne, Ind.

3

49%

36

Providence, R.I.

3

84%

37

Boston

3

61%

38

San Jose, Calif.*

3

49%

39

Boise, Idaho

3

71%

40

Arlington, Texas

2

49%

41

Chicago

2

87%

42

Philadelphia

2

79%

43

St. Louis

2

61%

44

Fresno, Calif.*

1

76%

45

Fontana, Calif.*

0

81%

EDUCATION CITIES

7


CITY, STATE

PACE OF CHANGE


46

Anchorage, Alaska

0

65%

47

Oxnard, Calif.*

0

80%

48

San Francisco*

0

63%

49

Bakersfield, Calif.*

0

42%

50

Buffalo, N.Y.

0

33%

51

Moreno Valley, Calif.*

0

82%

52

Stockton, Calif.*

0

77%

53

Virginia Beach, Va.

-1

38%

54

Albuquerque, N.M.

-1

64%

55

New York

-1

70%

56

Austin, Texas

-2

68%

57

Minneapolis

-2

69%

58

Chula Vista, Calif.*

-2

47%

59

Durham, N.C.

-3

65%

60

Washington, D.C.7

-3

61%

61

Long Beach, Calif.*

-4

70%

62

Laredo, Texas

-4

82%

63

Cincinnati

-5

54%

64

El Paso, Texas

-5

74%

65

Toledo, Ohio

-5

74%

66

Fort Worth, Texas

-5

67%

67

Chesapeake, Va.

-6

29%

68

Santa Ana, Calif.*

-6

82%

69

Rochester, N.Y.

-6

64%

70

Modesto, Calif.*

-6

68%

71

Charlotte, N.C.

-6

64%

72

Columbus, Ohio

-8

75%

73

Lexington, Ky.

-8

43%

74

Sacramento, Calif.*

-8

71%

ashington, D.C. Education Equality Index scores were calculated by comparing low-income W student proficiency in D.C. to all students in D.C.

31

32



CITY, STATE

PACE OF CHANGE


75

Cleveland

-8

88%

76

Lubbock, Texas

-9

63%

77

Newark, N.J.

-9

85%

78

Des Moines

-9

69%

79

Milwaukee

-10

84%

80

San Antonio

-10

67%

81

Oakland, Calif.*

-11

76%

82

Madison, Wis.

-11

49%

83

Nashville, Tenn.

-11

71%

84

Fayetteville, N.C.

-12

61%

85

St. Petersburg, Fla.

-14

52%

86

Houston

-15

74%

87

Garland, Texas

-17

67%

88

Dallas

-18

84%

89

St. Paul, Minn.

-20

69%

90

Richmond, Va.

-21

55%

91

Greensboro, N.C.

-22

57%

92

Corpus Christi, Texas

-23

61%

93

Winston-Salem, N.C.

-23

64%

94

Irving, Texas

-23

72%

EDUCATION CITIES

State Rankings (By Pace of Change 2011-2014) PACE OF CHANGE RANKING

STATE

PACE OF CHANGE


1

Nebraska

35%

44%

2

Rhode Island

18%

46%

3

Nevada

14%

51%

4

Massachusetts

13%

37%

5

New Hampshire

13%

27%

6

Pennsylvania

10%

40%

7

Indiana

7%

49%

8

Colorado

7%

42%

9

Washington

6%

45%

10

Vermont

6%

36%

11

Tennessee

5%

58%

12

South Carolina

4%

58%

13

Florida

4%

59%

14

Kentucky

2%

55%

15

Missouri

2%

45%

16

Iowa

2%

40%

17

New Jersey

1%

37%

18

California

1%

55%

19

Connecticut

1%

37%

20

New Mexico

0%

68%

21

Ohio

0%

39%

22

Oregon

-2%

49%

23

New York

-4%

48%

24

Illinois

-4%

50%

25

Minnesota

-5%

38%

26

Idaho

-5%

47%

27

Alaska

-5%

40%

28

Virginia

-6%

39%

33

34



STATE

PACE OF CHANGE


29

Delaware

-7%

51%

30

Montana

-7%

42%

31

North Dakota

-8%

32%

32

Texas

-11%

60%

33

Wisconsin

-14%

41%

34

Wyoming

-17%

38%

35

North Carolina

-20%

53%

*T his score was calculated using 2013 data. California Department of Education did not record 2014 test results during transition to Smarter Balanced Assessment System.

EDUCATION CITIES

35

St. Joseph Academy Courtesy of St. Joseph Academy

EDUCATION-CITIES.ORG